Why would McDonald's cut down a rainforest? Even if they did, why am I responsible? What does my vote have to do with the actions of any private party? In the best-case scenario, as little as possible.
I don't know what you're on about really. You seem to think that we have a direct democracy where we vote on what other people are allowed to do. I can't imagine a more horrible way to run a country.
You figure out how to turn that from a pretty idea into an actual viable plan for peace (that checks people who do not believe as you do from assimilating their neighbors), and then we'll talk.
Until then, I will happily pay my taxes into the US war machine. Despite being mis-purposed from time to time, and despite some really hellacious financial shenanigans, the US Military can (by and large) be trusted to get the job done. As long as the job doesn't include fighting a "war on terror" (which to me makes about as much sense as a "war on that feeling you get just after you wake up from a Saturday afternoon nap". Where did we get this idea that war on notions ever works? War on hunger? War on poverty? War on drugs? Which of these was successful? War works great against nation states and evil dictators. It's really bad against ideas.)
What exactly does a person building an amateur rocket engine in his garage have to do with interstate commerce?
I mean, you might argue that the fact that said amateur eats food and uses gasoline that comes through different states gives the Fed the right to tell this person to do whatever they want him to, but I think you'd be, like, really wrong.
The Interstate Commerce clause has been horrifically abused.
No, the Constitution doesn't talk about any rights, as such. Except to outline particular rights that the Government is not allowed to infringe. I don't think the language is terribly difficult to understand.
The Founders who opposed the Bill of Rights were absolutely right. They feared that some idiot would think that only the rights mentioned in the Constitution are rights. Unfortunately, we seem to keep electing those morons to the Legislative and Executive branches, who in turn appoint additional morons to Federal benches.
But hey! It's a living document, right? It's good that it changes, to restrict our rights more and more. Yay!
Australia has some pretty draconian Internet censorship legislation.
As to the prison population, I do indeed concur that that is a serious problem in America. The readiest solution is to rationalize our drug policy, which unfortunately is not likely to happen.
Just to be clear: This is an issue I think America is getting wrong. It is bad that we incarcerate so many citizens.
As far as New Zealand, I don't have enough information to form an opinion. It may well be just as free, or maybe even more free, than the US. Or maybe not. What political freedoms do New Zealanders enjoy that Americans do not? Do you have the right to bear arms?
And I was responding to a statement about Finland vs. the United States. If you took my statement outside that context, it becomes invalid. But that's up to you.
For color-wheel projectors, any given color is not incident on the screen at the same time as any other. So if the screen is "calibrated" to only reflect R and G and B, our eyes would still do the "interpolation" to get the full colorspace.
Don't know if that's the way this thing works, but it's one possibility...
Settle down, Beavis. I wasn't criticizing your social contract.
Given two countries with similar levels of political freedom, the one with a lower tax rate has greater economic freedom, and is therefore more free.
I don't agree that saying "Under God" means that we don't have religious freedom in America. I think that's silly.
Your point on same-sex marriage is well taken. Me, I think that we should end all state interest in marriage. Want to get married to your dog? Great. The State shouldn't care. Nor should it give preferential tax treatment either way.
No, I don't believe that socialized health care makes a country more free. I believe it makes a citizen more safe, but not more free. Me? I prefer freedom. You are certainly entitled to disagree.
And, re: the political freedom, the electoral college is the Law of the Land. Nobody ever said that the person who gets the most popular votes will win. The bottom line is this: That election was way too close to call, and both candidates flexed their political muscles to influence the outcome. Bush happened to win.
Please don't confuse this with support of Mr. Bush or his policies. His administration is the greatest threat to American freedom since FDR.
I am claiming that, when considering two countries with similar levels of political freedom (The US and Finland), the country with higher taxes is less free.
No, since Finland (which is a country that enjoys a large amount of political freedom, similar to the US) has a high tax rate, it is arguably less free than the US.
I made no broad claims about other countries that have lower tax rates than the US.
I didn't say anything about whether the taxes are wasted. However, money that the government takes from me is not money that I am Free to spend.
And, re: high quality education, I somehow managed to get one even though I live in the US. In public schools, no less.
Are there better educational systems? You bet. But that's a discussion for a different day.
Yup. Sounds to me like they're pretty good at warfare.
The Swiss aren't peaceful because they like hugs and rainbows. They're peaceful because they are a militarily powerful, wealthy country, with defensible borders and nobody wants to mess with them.
Except Napoleon. I thought he was repulsed...I need to read up on that.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay.
Why would McDonald's cut down a rainforest?
Even if they did, why am I responsible?
What does my vote have to do with the actions of any private party? In the best-case scenario, as little as possible.
I don't know what you're on about really. You seem to think that we have a direct democracy where we vote on what other people are allowed to do. I can't imagine a more horrible way to run a country.
You figure out how to turn that from a pretty idea into an actual viable plan for peace (that checks people who do not believe as you do from assimilating their neighbors), and then we'll talk.
Until then, I will happily pay my taxes into the US war machine. Despite being mis-purposed from time to time, and despite some really hellacious financial shenanigans, the US Military can (by and large) be trusted to get the job done. As long as the job doesn't include fighting a "war on terror" (which to me makes about as much sense as a "war on that feeling you get just after you wake up from a Saturday afternoon nap". Where did we get this idea that war on notions ever works? War on hunger? War on poverty? War on drugs? Which of these was successful? War works great against nation states and evil dictators. It's really bad against ideas.)
What exactly does a person building an amateur rocket engine in his garage have to do with interstate commerce?
I mean, you might argue that the fact that said amateur eats food and uses gasoline that comes through different states gives the Fed the right to tell this person to do whatever they want him to, but I think you'd be, like, really wrong.
The Interstate Commerce clause has been horrifically abused.
No, the Constitution doesn't talk about any rights, as such. Except to outline particular rights that the Government is not allowed to infringe. I don't think the language is terribly difficult to understand.
The Founders who opposed the Bill of Rights were absolutely right. They feared that some idiot would think that only the rights mentioned in the Constitution are rights. Unfortunately, we seem to keep electing those morons to the Legislative and Executive branches, who in turn appoint additional morons to Federal benches.
But hey! It's a living document, right? It's good that it changes, to restrict our rights more and more. Yay!
Do you think that North Korea's attitude towards the US has been markedly changed by the existence of this game?
Do you think that America's attitude is any different because of this game?
This is just saber rattling. NK has an excuse to mouth off. Let 'em.
And hurt a grand total of how many people? I think the number is really close to zero.
With numbers like that, I'd much rather Hezbollah try to use rockets than guys in delivery vans. You know, a system that actually works...
I believe you have an inalienable right to do just that.
However, we don't really believe in inalienable rights around here anymore. Unfortunately.
That's patently absurd. Rockets are relatively simple. Targeting systems...now those are really, really hard.
That moist thwap was the sound of the point hitting you squarely in the forehead.
The poster was being sarcastic.
OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA!
That is a great scene.
But the lameness filter is really lame, so I'm putting a bunch more text down here to make the lameness filter not flag my message.
Australia has some pretty draconian Internet censorship legislation.
As to the prison population, I do indeed concur that that is a serious problem in America. The readiest solution is to rationalize our drug policy, which unfortunately is not likely to happen.
Just to be clear: This is an issue I think America is getting wrong. It is bad that we incarcerate so many citizens.
As far as New Zealand, I don't have enough information to form an opinion. It may well be just as free, or maybe even more free, than the US. Or maybe not. What political freedoms do New Zealanders enjoy that Americans do not? Do you have the right to bear arms?
And I was responding to a statement about Finland vs. the United States. If you took my statement outside that context, it becomes invalid. But that's up to you.
Fiscal conservatives never do that. Robber barons, on the other hand, do that all the time.
For color-wheel projectors, any given color is not incident on the screen at the same time as any other. So if the screen is "calibrated" to only reflect R and G and B, our eyes would still do the "interpolation" to get the full colorspace.
Don't know if that's the way this thing works, but it's one possibility...
Dude. It was the first post you replied to, and one that you yourself quoted.
Now if you want to continue having a civil discussion, that's fine. But stop being a dick.
Because it would cost gigabucks to switch. Any other questions?
And a metric ton is 10% heavier than an Imperial ton. So the signs still need to be changed.
Oh wait! I'm a stupid American. I'm not supposed to be able to do that arithmetic. I'm sorry.
Settle down, Beavis. I wasn't criticizing your social contract.
Given two countries with similar levels of political freedom, the one with a lower tax rate has greater economic freedom, and is therefore more free.
I don't agree that saying "Under God" means that we don't have religious freedom in America. I think that's silly.
Your point on same-sex marriage is well taken. Me, I think that we should end all state interest in marriage. Want to get married to your dog? Great. The State shouldn't care. Nor should it give preferential tax treatment either way.
No, I don't believe that socialized health care makes a country more free. I believe it makes a citizen more safe, but not more free. Me? I prefer freedom. You are certainly entitled to disagree.
And, re: the political freedom, the electoral college is the Law of the Land. Nobody ever said that the person who gets the most popular votes will win. The bottom line is this: That election was way too close to call, and both candidates flexed their political muscles to influence the outcome. Bush happened to win.
Please don't confuse this with support of Mr. Bush or his policies. His administration is the greatest threat to American freedom since FDR.
And see here, I thought everybody else on the planet was smart enough to take the inverse of a number. After all, us Americans are so stupid...
Well, you might be excused if that sentence wasn't in the root post of this discussion.
Have a nice day.
Well, I guess you didn't read where I said: "since Finland (which is a country that enjoys a large amount of political freedom, similar to the US)..."
I'll leave the point-by-point comparison of the charters of both countries to you.
*sigh*
I am claiming that, when considering two countries with similar levels of political freedom (The US and Finland), the country with higher taxes is less free.
Do you need me to draw you a diagram?
Tax rate is not the only determinant of freedom.
If you have a particular country in mind, let's discuss it. You are making overbroad generalizations.
No, since Finland (which is a country that enjoys a large amount of political freedom, similar to the US) has a high tax rate, it is arguably less free than the US.
I made no broad claims about other countries that have lower tax rates than the US.
I didn't say anything about whether the taxes are wasted. However, money that the government takes from me is not money that I am Free to spend.
And, re: high quality education, I somehow managed to get one even though I live in the US. In public schools, no less.
Are there better educational systems? You bet. But that's a discussion for a different day.
Yup. Sounds to me like they're pretty good at warfare.
The Swiss aren't peaceful because they like hugs and rainbows. They're peaceful because they are a militarily powerful, wealthy country, with defensible borders and nobody wants to mess with them.
Except Napoleon. I thought he was repulsed...I need to read up on that.